The High Court on Thursday lashed out at the State Public Prosecutor (SPP) for not producing before the court, a minor girl who was traced following a habeas corpus petition by her mother.
During the hearing of the petition by Eshwari, a resident of Vijayanagar, whose minor daughter had gone missing since October 2012, the division bench comprising Justice K L Manjunath and Justice H S Kempanna lashed out at the SPP for not producing the girl before the court.
The police had traced the girl and her lover at Tavarekere. While Manjunath, 24, was arrested, the 16-year-old was taken to the SPP’s office, who according to the police, sent her to State Home for Women.
The matter left the bench fuming when the SPP submitted that the girl was in the State Home. The bench was unhappy when it learnt that the SPP was behind this. “Who are you to do this? If the girl was traced in the evening, you should have at least produced her in the chambers in the High Court. Are you a magistrate?” the bench questioned.
“Such mistakes should not be repeated while dealing with High Court,” the bench warned the SPP.
When the girl was produced before the court, the court wanted to know the reason for elopement. When she said that her parents frequently quarrel and ill treat her, the bench refused to buy her argument. “They have educated you and, you are telling us that they don’t look after you well. Don’t lie to us,” the bench warned.
The girl preferred to go with her unemployed lover. But, later changed her decision and went with her mother on learning that he was behind the bars. The bench directed the advocate for the petitioner to properly advise the girl’s parents and disposed of the matter.
The High Court, on Thursday, adjourned the hearing of a petition by Ahmed Ali, sub registrar, K R Puram taluk, Bangalore North, challenging the investigation ordered against him by Lokayukta court alleging collusion with senior Congress leader D K Shivakumar in the Benaganahalli denotification case.
The Lokayukta court had ordered an investigation against him in connection with Benaganahalli denotification case. According to the complainant, the sub registrar had registered the land, acquired in 2003, after final notification was issued. About 86 acres of land was acquired by the State at Benaganahalli.
However, the sub registrar contended that he had done his duty. But the Lokayukta counsel Belliappa in his submission said as per Karnataka Land (Restriction & Transfer) Act 1991, sub registrar must not register the land which has been acquired. Justice K N Keshavnarayana adjourned the matter.
Plea to ban movie
The High Court on Thursday directed the petitioner seeking a ban on the Kannada movie ‘Manjunath LLB’ to submit a representation to the Union government.
The petitioner Vijaykumar had submitted that the film has portrayed advocates in a bad light and brought disrepute to the profession. He submitted that as the title and some scenes in the film will affect the advocate community, he was filing the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Justice Ram Mohan Reddy, disposed of the petition with a direction to the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to treat the petition itself as representation and to decide the matter in the light of sections 5B,5E,5F,6 of the Chromatography Act and Rule 31 regarding film certification.